Glove

I don't really want to drag this topic out further, but the implications of some of the arguments are a bit disturbing. While the OP was inarticulate and brash in her presentation of her arguments, I believe what she was getting at was that privilege can blind people to the reality of what different people face. Here is a short definition of privilege as used in the context above quoted from another source: "Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. Its about advantages you have that you think are normal. Its about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. Its about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf." Privilege can exist in the context of gender (i.e. male privilege), class, race and other aspects that make up an individual as part of differing groups in society. Privilege is afforded to groups of people (i.e. the wealthy), and thus often difficult for an individual to perceive their own privilege because that privilege is the norm for them and is often the norm for the people who surround them. Also, disadvantage in one are does not cancel out privilege in another (i.e. if a man were poor he would have the disadvantages associated with that socio-economic class, but he would still have the privileges that come with being male). Obviously, everyone faces hardships in their life, the problem is that the hardships of groups without privilege are often dismissed, swept aside or otherwise invalidated; especially as told by a person within that disadvantaged group. Anyway, I won't be reading or posting on this thread further, so if you have a question or a criticism about what I've just posted, feel free to continue this through PM.

Man, I remember the very first time I had a floor with Thunderous. I was in a random team with a lvl 100+ dunger, and rather than just soloing Thunderous himself, he took the time to teach me and another person how to do it ourselves. I didn't solo Thunderous well after that; it took me a few times doing it largely on my own to get the hang of it, but that mentoring the first time laid a foundation that was invaluable. Even after I failed miserably the first few times I tried soloing or duoing Thunderous myself, I always felt like I'd get the hang of it eventually because I had done it before successfully. The whole road from when I started teaming large dunges (I soloed dunge until lvl 74 or 75) to reaching my goal of lvl 100 dunge was built on moments of either someone taking a second to mentor me, or me dying and learning through the school of hard knocks. There's no way to avoid some of those hard knock lessons, but a lot of them can be avoided (or simply not repeated more than once or twice) if you have a mentor giving you advice and teaching you how to do it. Dunge is one of those skills where it absolutely helps to have a mentor because there's only so much you can learn from guides; you need hands on experience, and watching someone in the moment, having someone there who you can ask things when something comes up, is just invaluable. So, awesome job guys. Right now I'm on a break from dunge until I get 99 def and most likely until I get a few more goal levels in other skills, but as soon I'm back in the swing of things I'll be more than happy to help mentor. My keying needs some work, but I can always be a second set of hands to help teach the ins and outs of team dunging to people new to it. EDIT: On the topic of 60 min floors vs. 20 min floors, there's actually a very practical reason why a lot of dungers prefer faster floors, especially when teaming, that has nothing to do with exp/hour (although, admittedly, that is a nice bonus and probably the reason most people would cite first). A lot of teams have at least one random person who is a complete stranger to everyone else on the team. This leaves a large amount of space for personality conflicts to come into play, and the longer the floor goes on the more chance there is for people to blow up and either quit or do something else spiteful that ultimately only hurts the team. Most people can grin and bear someone that annoys them (or does things that annoy them) for twenty minutes, but an hour is pushing it. Just a caveat, I'm not saying that most players don't worship at the altar of exp/h. They do. Most dungers do. I'm just saying that there are other, equally valid reasons that someone would want to do floors quickly; and the complexity of team play with strangers is definitely one of them.

I'm a skiller and I don't flip so I don't often have large sums of money at my fingertips, but I've noticed a difference. I had a blue drags task today and half the people there were leaving the skins on the ground and just going for the bones; admittedly, I was too. It was something I would absolutely never do normally, but frost dbone prices have been ridiculous lately so it didn't feel nearly as stupid to leave 2.5k on the ground as it usually would. That's the thing of it, with all the money being thrown around it feels bit endless. Like who cares about the loss right now if there's a prospect for a greater gain in the future? I'm worried though. People can throw more money than ever at whatever problem they see, or whatever end they want to accomplish. I'm worried I'm going to get priced out of the market for some buyable skills, like herblore. I mean, I could always just go back to super splunking, but I have goals I want to meet in a somewhat timely manner.

People paying to leech dunge? Great, as if there weren't enough people with no clue what they're supposed to be doing. I soloed 1-75ish dunge and sucked hardcore when I finally started teaming with people because I had all sorts of habits that just didn't mesh with rushing and team play. Still, at least I knew some of the basic mechanics. If someone leeched from 1-85 and then decided they wanted to start actually dunging for whatever reason, they would know nothing about how dunging works at all. Sure, there are vids and guides, but the best way to learn is to do; and, a key component to dunging cannot be taught in a vid or a guide. In dunge you've got to learn to work and communicate with strangers who will likely irk you at some point and have styles of play and communication that differ from yours; you absolutely only learn to handle this in a dunge setting by actually doing floors. Yeah, this is me hoping that should free trade get reintroduced to RS this never takes hold. Luckily, it probably won't for a variety of reasons.

Charm sprites do always give a charm slice, it's just that it can be one of four colours. It just takes too many slices per charm to be even a halfway decent method of collecting charms (or even very helpful in collecting charms at all). It's not super unbalanced, but it could be much better without making it overpowered; if it were even lowered to five slices per charm with would be more viable (although I think ideally it would be more like two or three slices per charm). It still wouldn't compete with most combat options for collecting charms, but it would be a decent compromise in hunter xp/hour and charms/hour for someone interested in getting both at the same time. Wrong. They do NOT always give a charm slice. I was getting slices at bout 3 slices per 5 captures. I stand corrected then. I didn't notice that the ratio of captures to slices was less than 1:1, but I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention.

Charm sprites do always give a charm slice, it's just that it can be one of four colours. It just takes too many slices per charm to be even a halfway decent method of collecting charms (or even very helpful in collecting charms at all). It's not super unbalanced, but it could be much better without making it overpowered; if it were even lowered to five slices per charm with would be more viable (although I think ideally it would be more like two or three slices per charm). It still wouldn't compete with most combat options for collecting charms, but it would be a decent compromise in hunter xp/hour and charms/hour for someone interested in getting both at the same time.

Yeah, so far it's not great charms and it isn't excellent hunting xp (it is decent xp though), but I'm having a lot of fun actually doing it. I'll probably stick with it because it's more fun (and more interactive without being mind numbing) than the other ways of training hunter I've tried in the past.

I'm kind of getting mad that so many of the NPCs end up dying too. It's starting to feel gimmicky and lame. I actually really liked Korasi and Jessika and I didn't want to choose either of them. I wish the third option had actually been an option (along with the other two); I think that would have actually had more of an emotional impact and would have made the player think more about what they were choosing (i.e. sacrifice a friend while trying to divert a disaster, or go ahead and be the direct catalyst for a disaster so you can save both friends). Missed chance to have a bigger moral dilemma. Bah. Plus, I'm also going to miss how subtexty those two were together. Sigh.

No, you don't; but implying you know more about writing and are a better writer than other people leaves you open to people asking for evidence of it. I'm sorry, I don't just take people's word for it. I like to be able to judge things for myself and come to my own conclusions. His statements made me curious, so I asked. I could not find any examples of his writing on my own, so I asked for them. I'm not joking or trying to make a personal attack, I'm being completely honest and sincere without judgment (which I know can be difficult to tell in text, so I want to be clear about that). And in case anyone is wondering, I'm not friends with Racheya or anyone on the Tip.It Times staff. I'm not affiliated with anyone who runs Tip.It; I was in Das' clan for a time, but that was some time ago. I have little to no personal investment in this, aside from being a person who dislikes when source material is skewed and misinterpreted in arguments. I will admit I'm not adverse to disagreeing with people and communicating my own point of view. EDIT: Just to be entirely clear what prompted me to ask for credentials or writing samples, as I've realized some people are assuming I'm asking in response to Stonewall's comments about Racheya's article. It was actually nothing to do with Racheya's article or Stonewall's response to it, rather it was this comment made in response to jp7725's rebuttal of his points. Stonewall is stating what he believes jp knows about writing, I would like to know what Stonewall knows about writing. That's all.

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like. Lol at you guys jumping Stone, you don't see me waltzing to the reviews section of a major newspaper, magazine, or any publisher and asking them for their credentials or previous work.... I'm not trying to 'jump' on him, I'm asking him because he's making statements about other people's abilities and I have no means of judging his own (aside from his posts, which don't provide a big enough sample). People don't generally ask for samples from professional writers for samples of their work because it's generally pretty easy to find some. If someone has written a review, I have something I can read and decide for myself whether or not I trust the judgment of the person. He's questioned other people's ability to write and knowledge of writing, and in turn I'm questioning his. He's free to question mine in response, I'm not asking for anything I would not willingly provide in turn.

You've made a number of claims about other people's knowledge of and ability to write, can you please explain to me what makes you eminently qualified to judge that? If you have a sample of your own writing that I can read, I would appreciate that as well. I would be willing to do the same for you if you like.

One of the quotes you picked out has the phrase 'I think' in it. She uses the phrase four times in the article, and uses 'I' no less than twelve times. Even when she uses 'we' it's in an editorial 'we' context. That's substantial considering the article is only a bit over a thousand words long. 'Many people' doesn't necessarily speak for others, it just means that's what she thinks many people do, believe and enjoy; it says a lot more about her than anyone else. "I think that many players believe X"? Whatever. Same thing. You're still saying many players believe X. No, it's not the same thing. One is stated as though it's fact, the other is clearly stated as though opinion. Considering the context of how the article is delivered, 'I think' is implied pretty well every time she uses 'many people' (or 'many players,' whichever she actually uses in the article). Stating 'I think' clearly indicates to the reader that something isn't just based on facts; that's why professors eat you alive if you use it in an academic essay. Using 'I' implies the same thing. Yeah, that's what I said. It implies that she's laid out where everyone else stands and is, at the end, saying what she thinks. Um, no. I honestly can't tell if you're deliberately misinterpreting my words, but what I'm saying is that she's laying out what she thinks the situation is for the entire article; meaning that the entire article is comprised on her own thoughts on things, even when these thoughts are about what others may think of things. The entire thing is her interpretation of a situation, a set of ideas surrounding a topic within the community; then she comes to a conclusion about that situation. Yes, she lays out what she believes is generally where people stand, but that doesn't mean she's laying it out as fact (immutable, without question); she lays it out as her opinion. She then gives her conclusion about it, which is still her opinion. The shift from interpreting to coming to a conclusion doesn't change that it's her opinion.

One of the quotes you picked out has the phrase 'I think' in it. She uses the phrase four times in the article, and uses 'I' no less than twelve times. Even when she uses 'we' it's in an editorial 'we' context. That's substantial considering the article is only a bit over a thousand words long. 'Many people' doesn't necessarily speak for others, it just means that's what she thinks many people do, believe and enjoy; it says a lot more about her than anyone else. The closing paragraph which contains "And where do I stand on this matter?" doesn't imply that her opinion doesn't colour the rest of the article; rather I'd say it does the opposite, it reinforces that she has laid out the different sides of the issue as well as she can and is now offering up her final conclusion. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this could be anything other than opinion piece.

Except, like I said, she's writing as if she is representing the opinion of lots of different players. Sorry, was there a specific paragraph you're speaking of? I thought it was pretty clear it was all her own opinion, even the parts where she uses 'we' seem to be using the editorial 'we' (which, I hate on a stylistic basis, but that's neither here nor there).

I think I've laid out quite clearly why there might be a reason to have high requirements for a quest. Quite simply, if you have a narrative that requires a show of skill beyond that which a person could ordinarily show that it should correspond with a greater skill level demanded as a requirement to complete that narrative. I've also laid out some examples within mythology where skills unrelated to combat were needed to accomplish important tasks and finish quests. I've laid out my point of view in what I believe is a clear manner. I understand that we don't agree on a very basic level about what type of content should and should not be restricted by extreme level requirements. I believe that this is because I fundamentally believe that story that requires epic achievements and moments in which the hero must go beyond and produce extraordinary skill and ingenuity to respond to equally extraordinary circumstances should correlate to requiring extraordinary levels (which in Runescape equates to time spent leveling skills) from the player who wishes to play through those moments. Anything less would honestly be a bit of let down. It wouldn't be proportionate, and it would likely kill my suspension of disbelief. I believe it's reasonable for content creators to ask this from players from time to time; not often, not even semi-regularly, but from time to time. I don't think we're going to come to a consensus on this, so I'm just going to agree to disagree with you. I understand that you may not value or appreciate my reasoning, but please don't say it hasn't been said. If you think there is some point which could use further clarification or documentation, I would very much be happy to provide that as I have plenty of time on my hands today.